Soc250
Independent Research Project
Without
Prejudice?
Data Presentation Link:
The way in which the
game show ‘Without Prejudice’ is set up transcribes what will happen in the
interaction. The objective of the game show is for five random people to decide
which one of five strangers deserves to win a sum of money ($25 000) based on
the impressions they give during six different ‘rounds’. The first ‘round’ is
called ‘first impressions’ and to give the show some credibility is allegedly
based on psychologists understanding that we make our first judgements of a
person within the first fifteen seconds of meeting them (Games Show NewsNet,
2007). The interaction is staged so that the contestants coming into the show
have to present themselves, so that they come across as a ‘sincere performer’
(Goffman, 1971, p. 28). The five panellists then act as the audience, having to
judge whether or not they believe the performance given off by the contestants.
If they do believe the first impression given off by the contestants then they
are more likely to allow them to continue on to the subsequent rounds.
The interaction of
focus here comes from the very first round of ‘first impressions’. In this
particular episode of the show there are the five panellists: Julie-Christie
Neal, R. Jay Fullmer, JJ Snyder, Dave Boulanger and David Rhodes. The
contestants are Jack Bennis, 25, Nancy Heinbock, 74, Michael Graham, 27,
Marline Gonzalez, 36 and John Jennings, 38. The host is Dr. Robi Ludwig, a
psychologist (Games Show NewsNet, 2007). In this particular interaction one of
the panellists, R. Jay’s first impression of contestant Michael Graham causes
an uproar when he says ‘I don’t like him on the fact that he is black’. The
interaction within the data is therefore the racist remarks said by A. Jay and
the reactions of the other panellists as the interaction breaks free from the
‘game show’ setting.
In this piece of data
we are presented with a micro interaction between A. Jay and the rest of the
panellists. The conversation between five random strangers has had the power to
affect macro phenomena. Because this interaction took place on a television
show in front of cameras it has resulted in far-reaching reactions from other
people and as such had an effect on macro interactions. Mouzelis (1992) believes
that ‘institutions and interactions can be both macro and micro (Mouzelis,
1992, p. 126)’. In social life these situations mean that one must always take
into account the ‘social positional and dispositional, but also the situational dimension of social life
(Mouzelis, 1992, pp. 126-7).’ This means that the social positions and
dispositions are not moulded by particular actions, rather they are achieved
through the actual process of interaction itself. In this particular case the
social positioning of A. Jay is not defined by what he has said and the way in
which he has acted towards Michael, rather it is defined by the interaction
with the other panellists and their reaction to his blatant racism towards
Michael. The very name of this particular YouTube video ‘One of the most racist
moments on live television’ positions A. Jay as a racist in a setting far from
the confines of the micro interaction between A. Jay and the other judges.
Goffman (1971)
understands life to be a performance. He believes that there are two ‘regions’.
These are defined as venues for performances. The ‘front-region’ is often where
formal performances take place, where performers make contact with the audience
and are governed by certain rules of conduct. The ‘back-region’ is therefore
that which is ‘hidden’ from the front region and often contradicts what is said
or ‘performed’ in the front-region (Ross, 2007, pp. 314-5). This exchange
between A. Jay and the other judges takes place in a front stage setting. It is
ironic as the show is called ‘Without Prejudice’ and is about making a
judgement based on how the person presents themselves in that particular
setting. This sort of behaviour is usually left for the ‘back-region’, as it is
criticising a person’s performance to their face- something that is not usually
done in such a front-stage setting. In this case however the creators of the
show are bringing the back region forward into the front region in order for it
to be used as entertainment. Despite the fact that the show is set up so that
the ‘judges’ give their opinion on their first impression of the contestants
there is still some sort of boundaries that cannot and should not be crossed in
such a formal setting. A. Jay does however cross a ‘sense-boundary’, which is
not necessarily a physical boundary between the front and the back regions
(Ross, 2007, p. 314). What ensues is the rest of the panel being pulled out of
their performances as judges in order to question and correct A. Jay on what he
has just said. When it is his turn to judge Michael, A. Jay says ‘I don’t like
him on the fact that he is black, absolutely not.’ Here the boundaries clearly
break from what should be seen in the ‘front-region’ of the show and behind the
scenes. After an outburst of disbelief David says ‘We rode in yesterday
together so am I to assume based on what you just said that you don’t like me
coz’ I’m black?’ after some more exclamations of disbelief from David, A. Jay
replies with ‘It doesn’t matter if we rode in or not, it doesn’t matter, I
don’t know you from anybody, okay? Yeah we shared the same cab, but you know
what? My personal beliefs and my personal experience, I don’t like ‘em, never
have and never will.’ It is precisely this sort of behaviour that should be
left to the literal backstage of the show. It is not something that people
expect to see on a television show, even on a television show where the primary
aim is to judge somebody based on who they are and how they present themselves.
Within his
understanding of life as a performance and the front and back regions of that
performance, Goffman speaks about the presentation of self and impression
management. The term ‘impression management’ refers to the ‘self-presentational
behaviour (that) connotes disguise or distortion (Tseelon, 1992, p. 117).’ In
other words a person employs certain kinds of tactics in order to manipulate or
control their behaviour. As a result of this type of behaviour a person is able
to express a sense of ‘contrived insincerity’. Nihei and Sato (2009, p.267) say
that deception is often used when there is a motivation for people to
manipulate their impressions of themselves. In the context of this show the
‘motivation’ for such behaviour could be the $25 000 price money, however the
contestants do not have the opportunity to employ such tactics as the judges are
only presented with a picture of the person, their name, age and where they
come from. The only form of impression management that is used what they are
wearing. In this case Michael has given the ‘wrong’ impression to Dave who says
‘Michael he seems like a cool guy, he can’t really dress, but other than
that...’ Even Dave is doubting this impression of Michael, and we can tell by
his hesitancy. In A. Jay’s case he is not employing the use of impression
management. He appears not to disguise or distort his disgust so that the other
panellists like him, rather he appears to be giving a sincere performance where
he is ‘fully taken by his own act (Goffman, 1971, p. 28).’ We are able to take
his performance as sincere as he brings forward his beliefs and contextualises
what he is saying. For instance A. Jay says ‘based on the experiences and the
people I’ve worked with and where I come from, um, I’m sick and tired of people
thinking, specifically I am mentioning black people, thinking we owe them
something.’ This gives some context to his comments, making us consider that he
truly believes what he is saying.
As well as impression
management in the concept of the ‘presentation of self’ Goffman also looked at
‘Facework’. This ‘Facework’ has to do with the things we employ in order to
develop or maintain our ‘selves’. Within this ‘face’ is a relational and
interactional concept where by the social self is ‘interactionally achieved in
relationships with others (Arundle, 2006, p. 193)’. A person is able to either
have a positive ‘face’ or a negative ‘face’, which a person has, depends upon
whether they are connecting on the same level as everyone else or if there is a
separation from them (Arundle, 2006, p. 193). Face is ‘lost’ when an individual
fails to meet those requirements considered essential ‘by virtue of the social
position he occupies (Ho, 1976, p. 867).’ In the data clip it is therefore
clear that A. Jay has ‘lost face’. In this case A. Jay is expected to act in a
certain way because the ‘social position’ he is in is one of power- due to the
fact that he is on television. We can see he ‘loses face’ when the rest of the
panellists react the way they do towards A. Jay after he has insulted Michael
because of his colour. JJ reacts with her jaw dropping and touching her face
like she is stressed or in shock and is generally silent throughout the
interaction that follows. Dave reacts in silent disbelief, before calmly asking
questions, whilst Julie-Christie reacts in complete disbelief, asking ‘are you
even serious right now!?’ The strongest reaction by far is David, a black man
who feels as though he too is being personally attacked by A. Jay because of
his skin colour. He too reacts in disbelief and before realising that A. Jay is
being serious looks almost amused. His face conveys a range of emotions from
surprise, to shock, to almost bemused and weary, to looking like he is in
physical pain whilst rolling his eyes and sighing. These reactions by fellow
panellists are what causes A. Jay to have a negative ‘face’ in this situation.
It is clear that A. Jay has said the wrong thing in the wrong setting. That
sort of comment has no place on a television show, even a television show about
judging people. In this interaction A. Jay does not even try to ‘save’ face
once it is clear that everybody understands his remarks to be inappropriate he
becomes defensive and the interaction begins to get out of hand.
After A. Jay makes his
initial comments about Michael there is an apparent shift in power. As the host
of the show Dr. Ludwig primarily holds the power in the interactions, able to
direct the conversation and opinions around the room and from one judge to the
next. However, after A. Jay’s racist comments against black people she directs
the conversation to David the only other black person in the exchange as though
he has some sort of right to react or say something on behalf of Michael (who
is unable to defend himself due to the nature of the show) and all black
people. By the end of the interaction David has developed an argument, saying ‘…so
stupid, even if you didn’t believe it, do you think I’m going to stand up here
and say I’m not going to give some money to someone because their white? Some
things are better left unsaid, rather than have people realise what an idiot
you are!’ This remark is met with resounding nods and a chorus of ‘I agrees’.
We are able to see that David has gained the power in this interaction so that
he is able to ‘shut down’ A. Jay. Just after this however the interaction
begins to get out of hand and Dr. Ludwig has to step in to try and take control
of the situation, she says, ‘Okay let’s stop, wait, wait, wait, we have plenty
more to discuss…’ This results in a shift in power back to the primary focus,
which is ‘doing’ the game show.
This piece of data
presents us with a micro interaction between five judges and when one judge
steps outside what is expected of him we are able to witness the interactional
fallout. Not only are we able to see the power that a micro situation is able
to have on the macro world- in terms of the very name of the YouTube video
itself and the fallout the reactions of the other panellists have managed to
create, but we are able to distinguish between the ‘front-region’ and
‘back-region’ in everyday life. In A. Jay’s case he lost face and should have
left his comments to the ‘back-region’ so as not to disrupt the flow of the
‘front-region’ that is a television game show.
References:
Arundle, Robert. 2006.
‘Face as Relational and Interactional: A communication framework for research
on face, facework and politeness’, Journal of Politeness Research: Language,
Behaviour, Culture, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 193-216.
Game Show NewsNet.
2007, Without Prejudice [Home Page, Online] Available http://www.gameshownewsnet.com/prime/withoutprejudice/071707.html
[Accessed 31st Oct, 2012].
Goffman, Erving. 1971.
‘Performances’ in the Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,
Harmondsworth:Penguin.
Ho, David. 1976. ‘On
the Concept of Face’, American Journal of Sociology, vol 81, no. 4, pp.
867-884.
Mouselis, Nicos. 1992.
‘The Interaction Order and the Micro-Macro Distinction’, Sociological Theory,
vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 122-128.
Nihei, Y & Sato, T.
2009. ‘Contrasting Tactics in Deceptive Impression Management’, Social
Behaviour and Personality: an international journal, vol. 37, no. 2, p. 267.
Ross, Drew. 2007.
‘Backstage with the Knowledge Boys and Girls: Goffman and Distributes Agency in
an Organic Online Community,’ Organization Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp.
307-325.
Tseelon, Efrat. 1992.
‘Is the Presentation of Self Sincere? Goffman, Impression Management and the
Post Modern Self’, Theory Culture Society, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 115-128.
